Whatever.
1. Peter and Paul. There was already a church in Rome at the time that both Peter and Paul arrived. The RCC for political reasons relating to a desire to obtain supremacy over Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and later Constantinople, first claimed they started the church at Rome. Then they dropped Paul. The development of this tradition was historically late and coincided with Rome’s claim to the primacy of the papacy over the other churches. Development over time.
2. I am not going to do your homework for you. I gave you a list of church practices that were taught by the RCC as having scriptural basis and that required adherence by the RCC faithful. Much like the tradition of praying TO the saints that you have tried to defend, the traditions and instances I listed have gone through multiple iterations. The example of the anti-Hussite crusades to enforce RCC doctrine on the Hussites, culminating in five defeats of RCC forces, and ultimately the RCC capitulating to permitting the Hussites to retain their distinctly non-RCC doctrines is illustrative and happens to be the one I’m reading about now. The political power of the papacy. etcetera etcetera. All of these are practices and traditions and acts that the RCC condoned, justified, and/or explained through scripture.
Your entire argument depends (and loses) on the proposition that the RCC has never once undertaken any act, promoted any practice, or maintained any tradition that was contrary to scripture. This is wholly indefensible, prideful, and wrong. Historically wrong. Doctrinally wrong. Every church has done that, just as every believer. To insist otherwise is ridiculous.
On purgatory, i’ll admit that I reversed it. The RCC didn’t realize that Purgatory was a necessary dogma of the RCC until the 15th century. So a failure to believe in purgatory was not a sin before the late 1400s, but was afterwards.
Finally, on your last normative claim, please kindly go do your own work. This is an internet forum, I have other demands on my time, and clearly we will disagree.
I am sure you will feel the need to respond. Please forgive me if I do not feel the same desire to continue this fruitless conversation. I refuse to engage in Catholic-bashing, but I will not back down from the obvious truth that the RCC has changed its teachings and indeed been mistaken about what scripture requires over its approximately 1600 years of existence.
The RCC has through history taught and then retracted several interpretations of scripture.
I asked you to cite examples of scripture that the Catholic Church retracted. You have posted general historical information about the Church, all of which are interesting but not the scriptural passages you assert the church has retracted. Can you please post these?